WILLIAM BROOKS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Sentencing Departures cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
These two decisions, both of which are reported as Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), are before us based on a certified question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The certified question is the same as that which we addressed in State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985), and State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1985). The district court below addressed the question of appellate review of departures from sentencing guidelines where a trial court relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons for the departure. Applying a harmless error analysis, the court concluded that “elimination of these impermissible reasons for deviation would have no effect upon the trial judge’s sentencing decision.” Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d at 1307. In so holding, the district court anticipated our own holding on the dispositive issue in Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). We approve the decisions below.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…he case remanded for resen-tencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of impermissible reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. See Brinson v. State, 476 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1985); Brooks v. State, 476 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1985); State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1985); State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985); Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985). In the present case, the trial court’s justification for departing from the guidelines sentence was ba…
-
Alphonso Prosperty Smith v. State, 479 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ether a departure from the sentencing guidelines by a trial court may be upheld, even though some of the reasons for departure are invalid, rather than requiring either supplemental briefing by the parties or automatic reversal. See Brooks v. State, 476 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1985), approving 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Carney v. State, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1985), approving 458 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In this case, after examination of the reasons for departure stated by the trial court, we conclu…1 / 3
-
State v. Davis, 477 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1985)…State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985), in which we held that, since prior convictions are already factored in as a part of the presumptive guidelines sentence, they may not be used as a clear and convincing reason for departure. See also Deer v. State, 476 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1985); Gregory v. State, 475 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Carney, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Enmund, 476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985)
- Brooks v. State, 456 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)